In this book chapter, the authors criticise the CMA for relying on the same evidence of a gap between prices and costs in its assessment of each of market definition, dominance and abuse. When coupled with the absence of analysis of comparator prices – which, the authors argue, the CMA replaced with a failed search for justifications for a price-cost gap when finding that the price was ‘unfair in itself’ – this could serve as a precedent for a fragile and unreliable approach to assessing excessive pricing. The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the framework for assessing excessive pricing under European law (and its British equivalent). The paper builds on United Brands‘ two-step test, and particularly the requirement that am excessive price must exceed the “economic value” of the product to such an extent that the price bears “no reasonable relation” with that value. The legal test set out by the ECJ is as follows. First, the test…

This paper, which can be found here, argues that antitrust enforcement against excessive pricing by medicines runs against democratic choices reflected in the dense and intricate regulatory network that applies to the pharmaceutical sector. The paper is structured as follows: The paper begins with a quick overview of excessive pricing cases in the EU. There have only been a handful of excessive pricing cases in the EU. The rare cases that have been brought have fallen into rather specific categories: (i) cases involving copyright management societies in the EU, with de jure or de facto unregulated monopoly positions in each national territory; (ii) parallel trade or market integration cases, where the excessive price was a tool to discourage or prevent parallel trade; and (iii) cases where the main issue was exclusionary conduct, and the further concerns about pricing were really the corollary of other abusive practices. In fact, under EU law there has never been a truly standalone finding of excessive…

This article, which can be found here, pursues a comparative analysis of the recent case law on excessive pricing in the pharmaceutical sector, examining in particular the Italian and UK experience. The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 begins with a brief review of the existing literature on excessive prices in the EU. This section reviews the arguments for and against competition authorities intervening when prices are too high. On the one hand, it is argued that high prices should not be the subject of competition law intervention because such intervention may affect innovation incentives and dynamic efficiency; because high prices will attract competitors and, hence, will tend to self-correct; because there are high probabilities and costs of mistaken intervention; and because this is a task that should be left to specialised regulators. On the other hand, it is argued that correcting high prices directly increases consumer welfare, which is the goal of competition law; that high prices are not…

In the US, there have been antitrust enforcement efforts against various pharmaceutical practices that elevate price above the competitive level, such as reverse payments (or pay-for-delay), product hopping, and collusion among generic drug manufacturers. However, the conventional wisdom is that U.S. antitrust laws do not forbid high prices simpliciter. This paper argues that the conventional wisdom may be mistaken: Section 1 engages in a general discussion of the problem of high prices and provides two examples of a non-antitrust approach to this problem. The standard antitrust/welfare economics paradigm condemns high prices at least on the grounds of resource misallocation and deadweight welfare loss. Many scholars go beyond deadweight welfare loss concerns, condemning monopoly pricing because of the redistribution of the consumer surplus from consumers to producers, but some are indifferent to this redistribution. There is an additional argument that can be made against high prices, but it is one to which antitrust is often indifferent: high prices can be seen…

This paper can be found here. At the time it was written, competition law had rarely been used to address “excessive pricing” of pharmaceutical products. This was a worldwide phenomenon. In the United States, federal courts have refused to apply excessive pricing as an antitrust doctrine, either with respect to pharmaceutical products or more generally. Courts in some other countries have been more receptive to considering the doctrine, but application of the doctrine has been sporadic at best, including with respect to pharmaceuticals. Against this, the author argues that competition law and policy should develop robust doctrine to address excessive pricing in markets lacking adequate control mechanisms against exploitative behaviour. The article focuses specifically on the pharmaceutical sector because of its unique structure and social importance. This piece is divided into two parts. The first addresses competition policy and why it is appropriate to develop a doctrine of excessive pricing to address distortions in the pharmaceutical sector. The second part addresses…

The paper – a draft of which can be found here – discusses how competition law may be applied with regard to abuses of dominance involving patented pharmaceuticals. It argues that the pay for delay cases in both the US and the EU are only the first step in exploring the application of competition law to such products. The paper then examines abuses of the patent system with the aim to exclude competitors and, second, whether excessive prices can be sanctioned as regards IP-protected pharmaceutical products. The paper is structured as follows: Section II investigates the interaction between IP and competition law. This has been covered extensively in previous emails, so I will merely summarise the basic points. Inasmuch as IP law creates temporary monopolies, this would seem to create a tension with competition law, but this tension is merely apparent. Both competition and IP law ultimately seek to promote consumer welfare, and the protection granted by IP law does not amount…